FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Vet Rec / Equine skeletal scintigraphy: Comparing lesion detection abi...
The Veterinary record2024; e4069; doi: 10.1002/vetr.4069

Equine skeletal scintigraphy: Comparing lesion detection ability of methylene diphosphonate and hydroxymethylene diphosphonate in the caudal cervical and proximal metacarpal/metatarsal regions.

Abstract: Data regarding the lesion detection ability of different radiotracers are lacking in equine bone scintigraphy. Methods: In this prospective study, hydroxymethylene diphosphonate (HMDP) and methylene diphosphonate (MDP) were compared in horses with increased radiopharmaceutical uptake either in the caudal cervical region (CS group) or in the proximal metacarpal/metatarsal region (PMR group). Region of interest analysis was used to determine normal bone-to-soft tissue ratios, lesion-to-normal bone ratios and lesion-to-soft tissue ratios. Qualitative scoring and total count rates were recorded for each image. Results: A total of 213 scintigrams were included. Within the PMR group, there were significantly higher lesion-to-normal bone ratios for MDP compared with HMDP (p = 0.02). In the CS group, normal bone-to-soft tissue ratios were significantly higher for HMDP (p = 0.01). The interobserver agreement with regard to the qualitative assessment of the scintigrams was poor. Conclusions: Paired studies, comparing the different radiotracers in the same patient, were not feasible. Conclusions: This study revealed minor differences between the two radiotracers, although these have no practical implications. Both radiopharmaceuticals are well suited for detecting lesions at the investigated sites using equine bone scintigraphy.
© 2024 The Authors. Veterinary Record published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Veterinary Association.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-04-05 PubMed ID: 38578296DOI: 10.1002/vetr.4069Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research compares the ability of two radiotracers – methylene diphosphonate (MDP) and hydroxymethylene diphosphonate (HMDP) – to detect bone lesions in horses. The study reveals that the differences between the two grading systems are minor and they both work well in detecting bone lesions in the selected horse body regions.

Methodology

  • The study was designed as a prospective analysis with the goal to compare the effectiveness of two radiotracers, MDP and HMDP, in detecting bone lesions in horses. The study focused on two specific regions of the horse’s body: the caudal cervical region (CS group) and the proximal metacarpal/metatarsal region (PMR group).
  • A region of interest analysis was employed for determining three key ratios: normal bone-to-soft tissue, lesion-to-normal bone, and lesion-to-soft tissue.
  • Qualitative scoring and total count rates were recorded for all images produced in the study.

Results

  • A total of 213 scintigrams (Nuclear medicine imaging tests) were included in the final analysis.
  • In the PMR group, the ratio of lesion-to-normal bone was significantly higher for MDP compared to HMDP (with a p value of 0.02, it can rule out the chance outcome).
  • In the CS group, the normal bone-to-soft tissue ratio was noticeably higher for HMDP (p value of 0.01).
  • Surprisingly, the interobserver agreement, which refers to the level of agreement between different observers, in terms of the qualitative assessment of the scintigrams, was reported to be poor.

Conclusion

  • Due to certain logistical hindrances, it was not feasible to conduct paired studies, which would involve comparing the two radiotracers in the same patients.
  • Despite this, the study established that there were minimal differences between the two radiotracers and that both were effective when it comes to detecting lesions in the areas of focus using equine bone scintigraphy.
  • The minor differences found between the two radiotracers do not carry any practical implications, suggesting that both options can be feasibly used in the field.

Cite This Article

APA
Sielaff S, Gerlach K, Brunk J, Sill V, Jahn W, Pelli AC. (2024). Equine skeletal scintigraphy: Comparing lesion detection ability of methylene diphosphonate and hydroxymethylene diphosphonate in the caudal cervical and proximal metacarpal/metatarsal regions. Vet Rec, e4069. https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.4069

Publication

The Veterinary record
ISSN: 2042-7670
NlmUniqueID: 0031164
Country: England
Language: English
Pages: e4069

Researcher Affiliations

Sielaff, Sahra
  • Pferdeklinik Bargteheide, Bargteheide, Germany.
Gerlach, Kerstin
  • Department for Horses, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Brunk, Jan
  • Pferdeklinik Bargteheide, Bargteheide, Germany.
Sill, Volker
  • Pferdeklinik Bargteheide, Bargteheide, Germany.
Jahn, Werner
  • Pferdeklinik Bargteheide, Bargteheide, Germany.
Pelli, Anna C
  • Department for Horses, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

References

This article includes 40 references
  1. Ross MW, Stacy VS. Nuclear medicine. 2010;p. 215–234.
  2. Dyson S. Musculoskeletal scintigraphy of the equine athlete. Semin Nucl Med 2014;44(1):4–14.
  3. Pauwels EKJ, Blom J, Camps JAJ, Hermans J, Rijke AM. A comparison between the diagnostic efficacy of 99mTc‐MDP, 99mTc‐DPD and 99mTc‐HDP for the detection of bone metastases. Eur J Nucl Med 1983;8(3):118–122.
  4. Rosenthall L, Arzoumanian A, Damtew B, Tremblay J. A crossover study comparing Tc99m‐labeled HMDP and MDP in patients. Clin Nucl Med 1981;6(8):353–355.
  5. Frühling J, Verbist A, Balikdjian D. Which diphosphonate for routine bone scintigraphy (MDP, HDP or DPD)?. Nucl Med Commun 1986;7(6):415–425.
  6. Carciona M. Bone scan quality: technetium‐99m HDP versus MDP. Aust N Z J Med 1998;29(46):371.
  7. Pelli AC, Winter K, Offhaus J, Brehm W, Gerlach K. Equine skeletal scintigraphy: comparing normal bone‐to‐soft tissue ratio 2 and 4 hours after injection with either hydroxymethylene diphosphonate or methylene diphosphonate. Vet Rec 2022;191(10):e2077.
  8. Mageed M, Dyab S, Swagemakers J‐H, Gerlach K. The impact of different bone tracers and acquisition times on image quality of equine bone scintigraphy. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2022;63(5):593–600.
  9. Bevan JA, Tofe AJ, Benedict JJ, Francis MD, Barnett BL. Tc‐99m HMDP (hydroxymethylene diphosphonate): a radiopharmaceutical for skeletal and acute myocardial infarct imaging. II. Comparison of Tc‐99m hydroxymethylene diphosphonate (HMDP) with other technetium‐labeled bone‐imaging agents in a canine model. J Nucl Med 1980;21(10):967–970.
  10. Fogelman I, Pearson DW, Bessent RG, Tofe AJ, Francis MD. A comparison of skeletal uptakes of three diphosphonates by whole‐body retention: concise communication. J Nucl Med 1981;22(10):880–883.
  11. Van Duzee BF, Schaefer JA, Ball JD, Chilton HM, Cowan RJ, Kuni C. Relative lesion detection ability of Tc‐99m HMDP and Tc‐99m MDP. J Nucl Med 1984;25(2):166–169.
  12. Arndt JW, Pauwels EKJ, Camps JAJ, Heidema J. Clinical differences between bone‐seeking agents. Eur J Nucl Med 1985;11(8):330.
  13. Lantto T, Vorne M, Mokka R, Vähätalo S. 99Tcm‐MDP and 99Tcm‐DPD in pathologic bone lesions. A visual and quantitative comparison. Acta Radiol 1987;28(5):631–633.
  14. Bergqvist L, Brismar J, Cederquist E, Darte L, Naversten Y, Palmer J. Clinical comparison of bone scintigraphy with 99Tcm‐DPD, 99Tcm‐HDP and 99Tcm‐MDP. Acta Radiol Diagn 1984;25(3):217–223.
  15. Fogelman I. 99mTc diphosphonate bone‐scanning agents. 1987;p. 31–40.
  16. Subramanian G, McAfee JG, Blair RJ, Kallfelz FA, Thomas FD. Technetium‐99m‐methylene diphosphonate—a superior agent for skeletal imaging: comparison with other technetium complexes. J Nucl Med 1975;16(8):744–755.
  17. Story MR, Haussler KK, Nout‐Lomas YS, Aboellail TA, Kawcak CE, Barrett MF. Equine cervical pain and dysfunction: pathology, diagnosis and treatment. Animals 2021;11(2):1–21.
  18. Lischer CJ, Bischofberger AS, Fürst A, Lang J, Ueltschi G. Disorders of the origin of the suspensory ligament in the horse: a diagnostic challenge. Schweiz Arch Tierheilk 2006;148:86–97.
  19. Keyl M, Brehm W, Gerlach K. Quantitative assessment of nuclear bone scintigraphy using the ‘regions of interest’ technique as applied to the equine cervical spine. Pferdeheilkunde 2011;27(2):108–114.
  20. Weekes JS, Murray RC, Dyson SJ. Scintigraphic evaluation of the proximal metacarpal and metatarsal regions in clinically sound horses. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2006;47(4):409–416.
  21. Dyson SJ, Weekes JS, Murray RC. Scintigraphic evaluation of the proximal metacarpal and metatarsal regions of horses with proximal suspensory desmitis. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2007;48(1):78–85.
  22. AAEP Horse Show Committee. Guide to veterinary services for horse shows. 1999.
  23. Moyer W, Schumacher J, Schumacher J. Part 2: regional anesthesia. 2011;p. 92–144.
  24. Werpy NM, Denoix J‐M. Imaging of the equine proximal suspensory ligament. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2012;28(3):507–525.
  25. Gerlach K, Winter K, Zeller S, Kafka UCM. Nuclear scintigraphic retrospective study of the C6/7 articular facets of the equine cervical spine. Pferdeheilkunde 2018;34(4):347–352.
  26. Dyson SJ. Lesions of the equine neck resulting in lameness or poor performance. Vet Clin North Am Equine Pract 2011;27(3):417–437.
  27. Altman DG. Some common problems in medical research. 1991;p. 396–439.
  28. Byrne CA, Marshall JF, Voute LC. Clinical magnetic resonance image quality of the equine foot is significantly influenced by acquisition system. Equine Vet J 2021;53(3):469–480.
  29. Jee WSS. Integrated bone tissue physiology: anatomy and physiology. 2001;p. 1–68.
  30. McKinstry P, Schnitzer JE, Light TR, Ogden JA, Hoffer P. Skeletal radiology relationship of 99mTc‐MDP uptake to regional osseous circulation in skeletally immature and mature dogs. Skeletal Radiol 1982;8(2):115–121.
  31. Monier‐Faugere MC, Chris Langub M, Malluche HH. Bone biopsies: a modern approach. 1998;p. 237–280.
  32. Zhong ZA, Peck A, Li S, Vanoss J, Snider J, Droscha CJ. 99mTC‐methylene diphosphonate uptake at injury site correlates with osteoblast differentiation and mineralization during bone healing in mice. Bone Res 2015;3:15013.
  33. Van Zadelhoff C, Ehrle A, Merle R, Jahn W, Lischer C. Semi‐quantitative methods yield greater inter‐ and intraobserver agreement than subjective methods for interpreting 99mtechnetium‐hydroxymethylene‐diphosphonate uptake in equine thoracic processi spinosi. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2018;59(4):469–476.
  34. Spriet M, Espinosa‐Mur P, Cissell DD, Phillips KL, Arino‐Estrada G, Beylin D. 18F‐sodium fluoride positron emission tomography of the racing Thoroughbred fetlock: validation and comparison with other imaging modalities in nine horses. Equine Vet J 2019;51(3):375–383.
  35. Spriet M, Arndt S, Pige C, Pye J, O'Brion J, Carpenter R. Comparison of skeletal scintigraphy and standing 18F‐NaF positron emission tomography for imaging of the fetlock in 33 Thoroughbred racehorses. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2023;64(1):123–130.
  36. Didierlaurent D, Contremoulins V, Denoix J‐M, Audigié F. Scintigraphic pattern of uptake of 99m technetium by the cervical vertebrae of sound horses. Vet Rec 2009;164(26):809–813.
  37. Martinelli MJ, Rantanen NW, Grant BD. Cervical arthropathy, myelopathy or just a pain in the neck?. Equine Vet Educ 2010;22(2):88–90.
  38. Dyson S, Weekes J. Orthopaedic imaging. 2003;p. 77‒86.
  39. Keegan KG, MacAllister CG, Wilson DA, Gedon CA, Kramer J, Yonezawa Y. Comparison of an inertial sensor system with a stationary force plate for evaluation of horses with bilateral forelimb lameness. Am J Vet Res 2012;73(3):368–374.
  40. Szulakowski M, Mageed M, Steinberg T, Winter K, Gerlach K. Scintigraphic evaluation of cheek teeth in clinically sound horses. Vet Rec 2019;185(15):481.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.